If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public school

[Papewaio]

Culture deals with the ideals, customs and language of a group.

Some cultures have ideals and customs that others would find corrupt. Such as paying for access to politicians or bribes to move goods through customs quicker, or cops letting cops off for things they would charge normal citizens with.

Individuals can be more or less corrupt and are often influenced by the norm of the culture they are in and the risk/rewards associated with it.

[Husar]

http://www.thelocal.de/20150223/meas...-berlin-school

The one and a half year old died on February 18 afer being admitted to hospital on February 18.

After a meeting of the city senate's health committee, Health senator Mario Czaja said that "the boy was vaccinated against everything - except against measles," Tagesspiegel reported.

Czaja added that he was in favour of making vaccinations compulsory.

It is the first death in Germany from a measles infection since 2013, when a teenaged boy died from complications due to the virus, which he picked up as a baby.

http://www.dw.de/toddler-dies-of-mea...row/a-18274687

Measles has been spreading throughout the capital since October, with an outbreak having also been reported in nearby Leipzig. In the capital alone, some 574 cases of measles have been recorded since last October, equating to the largest outbreak seen in Berlin since the introduction of a series of medical reforms with the Infection Protection Act in 2001.

The articles also say that the virus was probably spread by refugees from former Yugoslavia where no vaccinations were carried out during the civil war. What's interesting though is that it managed to spread to >500 people, which seems to be some kind of first worlkd problem according to the quoted mister Czaja:
http://www.berliner-kurier.de/kiez-s...,29952754.html

Czaja forderte deshalb alle Berliner auf, den Impfstatus der Kinder, aber auch den eigenen zu überprüfen. Grundsätzlich gebe es bei Kindern aus „bildungsfernen“ oder Migrantenfamilien keine Sorgen. Czaja: „Impflücken haben Kinder aus gut situierten Kiezen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer.“

Therefore Czaja asked all people of Berlin to check the vaccination status of their children as well as their own. Generally there are no worries about people from "uneducated" (literally "education-distant") or immigrant families. Czaja: "Vaccination gaps are found among children from well-situated neighborhoods, for whichever reasons."

Once again proving that almost every trend from the US can be found somewhere in Germany as well.

[Gilrandir]

Culture deals with the ideals, customs and language of a group.

Some cultures have ideals and customs that others would find corrupt. Such as paying for access to politicians or bribes to move goods through customs quicker, or cops letting cops off for things they would charge normal citizens with.

Individuals can be more or less corrupt and are often influenced by the norm of the culture they are in and the risk/rewards associated with it.

Corruption (having, of course, moral and religious dimensions) is primarily a crime, thus is ultimately about laws, i.e. within the state's (not culture's) domain of responsibility. I doubt that the cases which you describe as acceptable in some cultures are legal in the corresponding countries. Thus corruption is always illegal, no matter what "cultures" may think about it.

[Sir Moody]

Corruption (having, of course, moral and religious dimensions) is primarily a crime, thus is ultimately about laws, i.e. within the state's (not culture's) domain of responsibility. I doubt that the cases which you describe as acceptable in some cultures are legal in the corresponding countries. Thus corruption is always illegal, no matter what "cultures" may think about it.

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

Basically Culture is a catch all term with a lot of factors (the law being one of those)

[CrossLOPER]

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

Basically Culture is a catch all term with a lot of factors (the law being one of those)

I would say that thorough corruption is a lack of culture.

[Gilrandir]

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

I would say that this tie is quite loose. While basic laws are more or less universal (about murders, theft and so on) cultures can't boast of it. Moreover, if a law is violated, there is a law-stipulated punishment, while the violation of culture norms can incur anything - from no punishment through severe punishment (aka lynching) up to creating a new norm.

[Sir Moody]

I would say that this tie is quite loose. While basic laws are more or less universal (about murders, theft and so on) cultures can't boast of it. Moreover, if a law is violated, there is a law-stipulated punishment, while the violation of culture norms can incur anything - from no punishment through severe punishment (aka lynching) up to creating a new norm.

There is no such thing as Universal law - its a tempting idea but it just doesn't reflect the real world.

Let me put it this way - who writes the law?

The law is written by people and therefore it is affected by the Culture of those writing it - it tends to reflect the cultural norms of the Country (which is of course made up of many subcultures) - over time a culture will change and so laws will change with it - Slavery and institutional Racism/Homophobia are good examples of this

[Gilrandir]

There is no such thing as Universal law - its a tempting idea but it just doesn't reflect the real world.

Let me put it this way - who writes the law?

The law is written by people and therefore it is affected by the Culture of those writing it - it tends to reflect the cultural norms of the Country (which is of course made up of many subcultures) - over time a culture will change and so laws will change with it - Slavery and institutional Racism/Homophobia are good examples of this

Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc). This is what I meant under universal law. But will one acknowledge the existence of it or no there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. For instance, wolf-whistling at a woman is a sample of culturally censured behavior, yet no one will arrest a man for it (at least not in Europe nor the USA).

[Sir Moody]

Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc).

That depends where you draw the line - in the UK assisted Suicide is illegal and will land you a possible Murder charge - in the Netherlands its legal (with restrictions on who can perform it (ie Doctors).

In some US states it is legal to shoot someone who entered your property without your permission - in the UK that would land you a Murder charge (unless they were actively threatening you).

Its all subjective to cultural norms... Murder is not always Murder...

A lot of Countries do share a common basis in law primarily because they share a common religion (which is a big Cultural player) but that doesn't mean they are Universal laws.

[Ironside]

Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc). This is what I meant under universal law. But will one acknowledge the existence of it or no there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. For instance, wolf-whistling at a woman is a sample of culturally censured behavior, yet no one will arrest a man for it (at least not in Europe nor the USA).

Murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc are relative crimes. That is, murder is always a crime, but what is defined as murder varies. Take duty to retreat and stand your ground in the US for example. Depending on what legal doctrine, the same act of killing will be either be counted as murder or not. Same thing with the rest. Copywright crimes like illegal downloading is both counted as theft and not.

Rape is seen as a horrible crime, not a crime at all (there's several countries where it is impossible to rape your wife) or justice (the good old prison rape for the evil guys).

Corruption is very much a cultural thing. The merger with the state has to with power (and very shitty pay when it comes to small time corruption). Self-perpertuating corruption are when the corruptors has enough power to make it a practical disadvantage to be non-corrupt.. The Chinese buissnessman who doesn't snort coke, don't do the public group sex, doesn't get drunk and don't even buy a prostitute to his room are not worth doing buissness with and the Mexican cop that can choose to take the bribe or the bullet can't do his job properly.
In both those cases, the top goverment are actively opposing that corruption and if we're talking about a goverment promoting corrpution, then it's pretty much impossible to root it out.

[Gilrandir]

That depends where you draw the line - in the UK assisted Suicide is illegal and will land you a possible Murder charge - in the Netherlands its legal (with restrictions on who can perform it (ie Doctors).

In some US states it is legal to shoot someone who entered your property without your permission - in the UK that would land you a Murder charge (unless they were actively threatening you).

Its all subjective to cultural norms... Murder is not always Murder...

A lot of Countries do share a common basis in law primarily because they share a common religion (which is a big Cultural player) but that doesn't mean they are Universal laws.

Yet in your examples of trespassing and euthasnasia you showed that in countries belonging roughly to the same culture and religion the same misdemeanor may or may not be considered a crime. So we may argue back and forth how criminal is this or that crime, but (excuse my copypaste) there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. So however cultural may the background of corruption be, it is still a crime and should be dealt with correspondingly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding corruption:

There are laws on the books in most polities criminalizing corrupt practices by public officials and, in many polities, by private citizens as well. The LAW may determine criminality, but that is only one aspect of the problem.

The degree of tolerance, in practice, for corruption is a cultural issue -- and often undercuts the efforts of laws that have been promulgated to curtail corruption.

Cultural "peer" pressure (sanctioned via social pariah status) is almost always more compelling of behavior than are laws. As a humorous example, I have often asked why nobody in my classes wears either a speedo or a bikini to class. Either of these outfits, unless unusually skimpy or see-through satisfies the LEGAL requirement for public decency. The answer, of course, is that it is viewed as unacceptable by their peers and would be ridiculed -- a CULTURAL sanction that is only tangentially connected to the law.

If, over and above the legitimate fees and market costs for a good or service, your culture condones bribes, requires significant gifts to obtain services or access, kickbacks in salary for having been hired and the like; then the culture itself is condoning corruption and laws will be of secondary influence at best. Until the culture, in the main, rejects and punishes such behavior then laws will not address the problem.

It has been my belief for some time now that the comparative intolerance of many Western societies for corruption has long been one of the great advantages that has enabled Western dominance of world affairs for so long. This is even sadder when you consider that the West has always had some problems with corruption -- thus implying that many other cultures are significantly worse.

[Gilrandir]

If, over and above the legitimate fees and market costs for a good or service, your culture condones bribes, requires significant gifts to obtain services or access, kickbacks in salary for having been hired and the like; then the culture itself is condoning corruption and laws will be of secondary influence at best. Until the culture, in the main, rejects and punishes such behavior then laws will not address the problem.

It may happen the other way around. The example is Georgia. During the USSR times it was considered the most corrupt republic and the situation evidently didn't change with the advent of independence. Only the political will of Saakashvili to change the practice and enforce the existing laws made the crackdown on corruption possible. And it took people awhile to get used to the fact that, for instance, the traffic police don't take bribes anymore.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It may happen the other way around. The example is Georgia. During the USSR times it was considered the most corrupt republic and the situation evidently didn't change with the advent of independence. Only the political will of Saakashvili to change the practice and enforce the existing laws made the crackdown on corruption possible. And it took people awhile to get used to the fact that, for instance, the traffic police don't take bribes anymore.

Then bully for him for making the effort -- should probably qualify as a profile in political courage deal. Yet, if his crackdown had not met with the (apparently surprised) acceptance of such a change, the change would not have "stuck."

[Gilrandir]

Then bully for him for making the effort -- should probably qualify as a profile in political courage deal. Yet, if his crackdown had not met with the (apparently surprised) acceptance of such a change, the change would not have "stuck."

So much for the (purportedly favorably predisposed to corruption) culture.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So much for the (purportedly favorably predisposed to corruption) culture.

Cultures can change. Thankfully.

[Don Corleone]

Jimmy Kimmel has a really funny bit running around Facebook. It's a PSA... Takes a different tack....

If you're not going to vaccinate your kids, you shouldn't be allowed to go to doctors and hospitals. You're just going to ignore what they say anyway. It was brilliant... The frustration level by real doctors on this one is palpable.

I personally believe it's a case of chickens coming home to roost, and hopefully the medical establishment is looking in the mirror. If doctors want to be trusted, they have to be seen as impartial, not shills for the pharmaceutical companies. They can't do that when they're taking bags of money on a per-prescription referral bonus.

I think the anti-Vax crowd has grossly miscalculated (if I remember correctly, vaccines actually don't make big-Phrama very much money, they do it to keep Congress off their backs). Greedy doctors are far more likely to prescribe you Viagra for not being able to get it up the night before an IRS audit... But even so, when you lay down with the pigs, you get mud on yourself.

[Papewaio]

Cultures can change. Thankfully.

Hence not all cultures or points of view are equal.

[Gilrandir]

Cultures can change. Thankfully.

It takes quite a while.

I think the anti-Vax crowd has grossly miscalculated (if I remember correctly, vaccines actually don't make big-Phrama very much money, they do it to keep Congress off their backs).

In Ukraine, since vaccination is mandatory and state-provided, those who won a tender to sell vaccines to the state, can count themselves very lucky and very rich.

[Sigurd]

Jimmy Kimmel has a really funny bit running around Facebook. It's a PSA... Takes a different tack....

[HopAlongBunny]

Myths and facts:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...are-dangerous/

[Gilrandir]

Myths and facts:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...are-dangerous/

As usual, being biased one way the article is silent about some things that pertain to the issue. For example, in the chapter "What's in the vaccine?" it says nothing of other substances (beside the vaccine proper) composing the said drug. Some of them, as I have remarked, contain lead. This is the same as saying that everything you buy at a supermarket is good for you because it is food while it is common knowledge that modern technologies allow to give a piece of the taste, flavor, texture, color etc of the product you desire.
One more important thing it skips is how vaccination is organized, which is what makes me apprehensive to it.

[Sir Moody]

As usual, being biased one way the article is silent about some things that pertain to the issue. For example, in the chapter "What's in the vaccine?" it says nothing of other substances (beside the vaccine proper) composing the said drug. Some of them, as I have remarked, contain lead. This is the same as saying that everything you buy at a supermarket is good for you because it is food while it is common knowledge that modern technologies allow to give a piece of the taste, flavor, texture, color etc of the product you desire.
One more important thing it skips is how vaccination is organized, which is what makes me apprehensive to it.

Oh goody that tired old trope again...

yes some vaccines contain Lead - many also contain Mercury - however both are in minute quantities - you get more mercury from eating Tuna...

To quote a Renaissance doctor "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Paracelsus

[Gilrandir]

yes some vaccines contain Lead - many also contain Mercury - however both are in minute quantities - you get more mercury from eating Tuna...

To quote a Renaissance doctor "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Paracelsus

And we all know how much mercury and lead was used back then, and it was thought to be a remedy.
Yet my point was not that vaccines contain lead, but that "unbiased experts" fail to mention it. Being unbiased presupposes giving both pros and cons leaving a person to make a choice for himself. Anything different is propaganda/advertisement/imposition.....

[Sir Moody]

Oh agreed however the problem with being unbiased is the other side isn't.

Science tried to be "unbiased" and look where it ended up - we now have a Measles crisis across most the Western world all because the Anti-Vac crowd throw out so much Conspiracy nonsense being "unbiased" basically hands the floor to them.

Let me put it this way - why mention that vaccines contain substances which can be harmful in massively larger doses when such information is immediately used by opponents to shout "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YOU THEY WERE POISONOUS!"

As Paracelsus said - EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in large enough doses - even water or oxygen...

[Gilrandir]

Let me put it this way - why mention that vaccines contain substances which can be harmful in massively larger doses when such information is immediately used by opponents to shout "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YOU THEY WERE POISONOUS!"

Not so long ago DDT was not considered to be harmful in any doses. Our knowledge about substances changes, so in any case I would like (and have a right, don't I) to know what I'm going to let inside my body. Somehow, harmful substances in sweet carbonated drinks and french fries don't discourage people from consuming them in hideous quantities. But they know what's in them anyway.

[Sir Moody]

Not so long ago DDT was not considered to be harmful in any doses.

thats disingenuous - DDT was dangerous in high doses (it was a pesticide for christ sake) - we knew that which is why it was "deployed" in lower doses that were thought safe.

The failing was one of testing - no long term testing was performed and thus the fact that DDT built up through the food chain was missed - since that mistake drugs testing is far more thorough.

Modern vaccines have gone through this far more rigorous drug testing - they are safe.

[Gilrandir]

Modern vaccines have gone through this far more rigorous drug testing - they are safe.

As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

[Sir Moody]

As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

I looked it up - the Vaccines in use in the Ukraine are the same ones in use in most of Europe - there was an issue with storage which spoiled a batch but that has since been corrected.

The problems with the Ukrainian vaccine program are 2 fold.

On the one hand the Government cannot afford the vaccines which has led to poorly implemented programs - 41% of the adult population has had the 2 required MMR doses - 95% is required to create Herd immunity.

Secondly there was a "scandal" where a teenage boy died after receiving the Measles shot - at the time many Doctors started to recommend people avoid vaccinations and much like the US and UK with the "MMR scandal" vaccination levels plunged - it has since been proven that the boys death had no link to the vaccine - it was all bunk - however the conspiracies continue to run wild. Apparently the Ukraine has a very strong Anti-Vac lobby which has lead to a severe amount of misinformation.

[Husar]

As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

As I have said, I do not care, I didn't plan to get my children vaccinated in Ukraine and I still don't.

So to maybe discuss something interesting again, I have never gotten a flu shot. Since the flu mutates every year anyway and the flu shots are sometimes actually a bit more risky than other vaccines AFAIK, I could never be bothered to get one. For the most part of my life I didn't even know that there was a vaccine against the flu. Then there is the issue of it being effective only against a subset of flu viruses. Would it be useful to campaign for everyone to get the flu shot every year in order to maybe one day eradicate the flu or would that be a fruitless exercise given that the flu mutates too fast?

Our government usually advocates that at least the risk groups should get it (doctors, old people etc.) while they leave it somewhat open to the rest. Does that collide with the herd immunity thing or is the vaccine strong enough for the vaccinated ones to be of use to them anyway even if all the other people get infected? Consider that the flu usually kills a few thousand older people each year in most of the western world while younger people seem to mostly have about a week of a hard time before they recover if they get infected.

Am I killing people by proxy for not getting the flu shot every year or is that an acceptable case of not getting vaccinated? Do you get the flu shot every year? Oh yeah, when I went to my doctor to get some overdue vaccination updates (FSME etc.), they didn't give me a flu shot either, and didn't mention it.